Both of them are nuts at that point,but we all know after that situation Jane will just be a sane & reasonable person,while Kenny on the other hand remains to be a ticking time bomb,ready to blow up at any random bump,I've made my decision who I am gonna be with,staying alone wasn't the wisest choice in my opinion though.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but from the looks of it your argument seems to consist of "Kenny can act that way because that's just the way he is, but Jane can't because she isn't the same". That's a double-standard - I don't see why Kenny should be cut any more slack than other people. Even Sarita dying is no excuse, because we all know Kenny has always acted aggressively, even before Katja and Duck died.
I have a massive amount of respect for Jane having the courage to call Kenny a ticking time bomb to his face, because it's absolutely true. Every other character (except maybe Clem) has been saying and thinking exactly the same thing, and Jane is the only one with the balls to say so. The truth may hurt, but it's still the truth, and it can't be ignored for fear of being "mean", especially when lives are at risk.
Context is important.
Kenny is an argumentative person, and tends to go overboard. Remember the train? When had that outburst with Lee, t… moreelling him that he wasn't helping anyone, and that his relationship with Clem was a sham? Remember when Ben had to shout back to Kenny and explain himself rather than retort back aggressively in order for Kenny to see things from another perspective?
What about Jane? What explains her outburst to Kenny? What does she get out from getting Kenny more and more over the edge by bringing up his battered face, that nobody will ever love him, and everyone will die around him because he is a "bomb waiting to go off". What's Kenny's answer to all this? When she says that Sarita knew it, and that Clem knows it? "I told you not to talk about my family!"
Still, when they pulled over due to the car wrecks, the two seemed to calm down. Jane was even going to apologize, I think.
I'm plenty happy with a contrarian favorable view of Jane, but:
1) That's true, though she says she came back largely for Clementine, and… more I think she has an unhealthy wanting to replace her sister with Clementine.
2) I thought that was Kenny or Mike; I guess I'd have to look again, but if you're right, point there.
3) She wasn't there. We don't know if Bonnie and Mike approached her. She wasn't trusted by the group, so they may very well have not (I didn't call for Kenny and Jane during that scene so it may be there)
4) Not selfish. Crazy and/or stupid. If anything it's self sacrifice - the whole 'don't interfere' alludes that she knows who extreme it would get.
5) She didn't want Clementine to interfere because she wanted to prove a point.
Kenny is far from flawed; but Jane is no good either. By the end, I was under the impression they were all monsters (that said I stayed with Kenny, if not simply out of loyalty).
...even if that were the question (which it is not), you can easily show correlations between brain activity and emotional responses. Of course you may not know this, because you aren't interest in that particular questions but claiming that this topic is some kind of all-eternal mystery is ridiculous.
Jane cared greatly for Clem. She saved Clem more then once. She even says he didn't want it to go that far. But she's like Kenny mad, I left her and killed Kenny. Wasn't easy as I liked both characters but what they did wasn't right.
The whole season she showed so much care for Clem.
Showing her how to scavenge walkers, how to effectively fight them, she gave her the na… moreil file as a useful tool and weapon when she left, she came back to save her from the russians ("90% of the reason I came back"), she pulled her out of the lake and finally she wanted her away from Kenny who more and more grew into a madman, that she (not only with Carver) has experienced over and over again.
Jane is the one person in the whole season that is independent and self-sufficient to get along without any help. If there is any reason for her to come back and involve herself with a group of people then it's because she deeply cares about Clem. It's absolutely obvious.
I'm not a Kenny fan or Jane fan. Do you not understand that Kenny and Clem got along and Jane wanted Clem to kill him because she's crazy too and wants Clem for herself?
In that respect Kenny is much more selfish than Jane, because he basically "robs" Rebecca of her son (there are certain scenes that show him to be quite creepy in his obsession with the baby).
Caring for Clementine is a selfish guilt , really , Seriously.She didn't do anything wrong in the past.
Anyway By that messed up logic Ke… morenny only care for Clem out of selfishness because he lost his son and he sees Clem as a replacement for the son he loved.
Lol, seriously? you're bringing religion into this?
That aside, I do put a lot of emphasis on intentions, because that's what matters the most IMO. If you choose to ignore intentions and just look at the surface of things, you'll be very easily manipulated.
Back to the story at hand: Jane. Flog61, your last sentence. You just underlined her being selfish in the first place. Which the whole point of your OP was to deny. If we take that as truth, then we can speculate on the possibility of selfishness turning her to selflessness (even if, just in regard to Clem). But that's a new can of psychological worms. Can that even happen? I don't know. It's kind of contradictory. I'd say it can happen as a "localized effect". I bring up, her protection of Clementine. She acts selfless towards her, but will most likely show her selfish side to others. Which brings us back to her, indeed, being selfish. Selective acts towards just ONE person is not enough to paint the truth.
One attempt at explanation:
Some (a lot?) people judge by intention, not by action. They largely ignore what you actually did, no matter … moreif good or bad, but just judge you by your intent.
If you do something good, out of "wrong" intention? Too bad, you're still evil.
If you do something bad, out of "good" intention? Well, great, you shall be forgiven.
My personal hypothesis why that is? Christianity....it deeply fucks with people's natural moral system. It turns it upside down and puts more weight on (supposed) intention than on the action itself. It also went into lot of judicial systems (because of their historical relationship to religions) to give people lower punishment when they have "right" intentions or "regret" of their actions. Doesn't change a bit about what happened though. That's why you also see some people talking of "redemption" of characters, when they do something good and think that this will compensate for all … [view original content]
She returns to the group when she hears gunfire in order to protect them because she feels guilty for leaving. That's not selfish.
She was the one who stole from the Russians in the first place, she was kind of responsible.
She saves Clem from the ice if she falls in, carried her and runs to the house as quickly as possible with her in her arms. That's not selfish.
Can't disagree here.
She stays behind with Clem when Bonnie, Mike and Arvo try to leave. That's not selifsh.
I was under the impression they were trying to sneak off with the car, so she might have been sleeping. I am pretty sure if Jane saw what was happening she probably would have killed them, for pointing a gun at Clementine, and trying to run off with the supplies.
She tries to convince clem that Kenny will burst at her if she actually accidentally loses the baby, in order to try to protect Clem. That's not selfish.
Your right its crazy. She is crazy. She wanted a fight with Kenny and got it. She brought it on herself, and if she wanted to stop the fight, all she had to do is say. Kenny i was just joking bro, the baby is still alive in the car over there. It was selfish of Jane to expect Clementine to just sit and watch as two people kill each other right in front of her. She is obviously more close with Ken because she has known him longer, she knew Jane for maybe 2 weeks.
Whether you like her or not, Jane PROVES that she DOES CARE about Clem
I think she did care about Clementine, but she was just as crazy as Kenny is, but at least Kenny's craziness is not based lies, deception.
I'm not saying it's a mystery, I'm saying it's something you decide for yourself. I'm sure you're very qualified to talk about brain activity and their correlation to emotional responses, but I think I missed the scene where Jane was getting an MRI-scan. There's no objectively right or wrong assessment no matter how many times you say it is.
...even if that were the question (which it is not), you can easily show correlations between brain activity and emotional responses. Of cou… morerse you may not know this, because you aren't interest in that particular questions but claiming that this topic is some kind of all-eternal mystery is ridiculous.
Yes, I do, because you can show that there are vast differences in the judgment of people's behavior among different cultures and that religions play a certain role in that. I won't deny that judging alone by actions can lead to problems, but so can judging alone by intentions (which you can't entirely be sure of anyway). It's just that actions are objectively observable and can be taken for measurement, intentions have to be infered or believed (if people state them) and that's a way greater uncertainty.
So actions should have the priority over anything, especially as that's the only way you can verify (if at all) people's (supposed) intentions, if you are not a fan of blind faith (which I am not obviously).
To me, a person that acts "good" always ranks higher than a person who acts "bad", no matter how good or bad their (supposed) intentions are. You can't absolutely know them anyway and people are prone to be emotionally fucked up more than often, so it doesn't matter anyway if they are completely aware of their behavior, even if it heavily contradicts itself with their stated intentions.
Considering that Christianity revolves a lot around the idea that all you bad decisions and actions can be instantly revoked and forgiven by just flipping a switch without any involvement of own reflection and the pain that comes with actually acknowledging your own mistakes and flaws, it just reeks a lot that people's judgment is clouded by that shit when they condone killing people on make believe if there were good intentions.
In the end you just say you're sorry and that's it, you know....
Lol, seriously? you're bringing religion into this?
That aside, I do put a lot of emphasis on intentions, because that's what matters the… more most IMO. If you choose to ignore intentions and just look at the surface of things, you'll be very easily manipulated.
Back to the story at hand: Jane. Flog61, your last sentence. You just underlined her being selfish in the first place. Which the whole point of your OP was to deny. If we take that as truth, then we can speculate on the possibility of selfishness turning her to selflessness (even if, just in regard to Clem). But that's a new can of psychological worms. Can that even happen? I don't know. It's kind of contradictory. I'd say it can happen as a "localized effect". I bring up, her protection of Clementine. She acts selfless towards her, but will most likely show her selfish side to others. Which brings us back to her, indeed, being selfish. Selective acts towards just ONE person is not enough to paint the truth.
" She didn't do anything wrong in the past. " - Except leave her sister to die.
And yes by my "messed up" logic as you call it, it's true. Kenny also cares for Clem and MOSTLY for the baby out of the need to fill the void. But, Kenny has shown to risk his neck for other people too, which negates selfishness.
Caring for Clementine is a selfish guilt , really , Seriously.She didn't do anything wrong in the past.
Anyway By that messed up logic Ke… morenny only care for Clem out of selfishness because he lost his son and he sees Clem as a replacement for the son he loved.
You know, for the past 24 hours you've been bitching constantly, insulting Kenny fans about how dumb they are. You've reached the point of maximum hypocrisy.
The point is that your brain and a lot of your evolution as a social ape stems from the importance of interpreting emotions in other apes. You don't need a MRI for that, you were born with (and learned) the tools for that. That doesn't imply that human are always right with their interpretations, but it doesn't imply the opposite either.
You see, that whole stuff with playing games that provoke heavy emotional responses in the players, wouldn't work if they didn't imitate the same stuff that you use to interpret other people: facial expressions, gesticulations, variations in voices, etc.
It's objectively measurable that this stuff exists and triggers responses, so it's no rocket science actually.
That's the stuff people here are talking about, it's that what you can use to judge people and their behavior, nothing else. Flog tried to tell you that but you ignored it and kept on talking about metaphysical concepts like intentions and how they are not objectively measurable.
You're right and it doesn't matter anyway because intentions are a stupid way of judging people.
The question about whether Jane cares for Clem or not is not a question of her intentions, it's a question whether she shows behavior that leads to the conclusion that Clem has an importance to her; doesn't matter how big and doesn't matter why.
Deducing the answer to that question out of her intentions (which you can't know as you say for yourself) and thus concluding, that you can't answer the question, is just your own logical fallacy and shows that you didn't understand the question.
I'm not saying it's a mystery, I'm saying it's something you decide for yourself. I'm sure you're very qualified to talk about brain activit… morey and their correlation to emotional responses, but I think I missed the scene where Jane was getting an MRI-scan. There's no objectively right or wrong assessment no matter how many times you say it is.
Sure, but that's a question of how much trust you put into people. It's paranoia to assume that because of the sheer possibility that everyone is going to, no matter what. That's the main difference between paranoia and being distrustful (until proven otherwise). Paranoid people won't also change their stance towards people, they will largely ignore any evidence that other people don't want to harm them.
I don't know if you played that way, but Jane tells the story about Jaime and how she dragged her on and on around several states for months over and over again until the point that she noticed that she just doesn't want to go on, doesn't want to live in this world. She tried over and over again to go on, but in the end she realized that it's ultimately futile as you can't force people to fight and live. it's a blunt statement that she "left her to die" as if it was nothing. It's just harsh reality that you can't save people if they don't want to be saved, that's not only true for ZA, but for every other circumstance as well.
At one point it's even cruel to force them to live because of your own feelings that you don't want to live without them. You don't ask if they want to, you just decide for them and that's what Jane realized and stopped at one point.
Letting people go if they want to, is anything but selfish, you know.
The problem here is that "selfishness" is such a shallow concept that doesn't go along well with actual reality of relationships.
" She didn't do anything wrong in the past. " - Except leave her sister to die.
And yes by my "messed up" logic as you call it, it's true… more. Kenny also cares for Clem and MOSTLY for the baby out of the need to fill the void. But, Kenny has shown to risk his neck for other people too, which negates selfishness.
I stayed with Jane, I want to be able to learn from her. I want my Clem to have a safe place and person who will teach her to survive, much like Lee had.
Jane cared greatly for Clem. She saved Clem more then once. She even says he didn't want it to go that far. But she's like Kenny mad, I left her and killed Kenny. Wasn't easy as I liked both characters but what they did wasn't right.
Again she might have had the best of intentions but what she did in the end was wrong. She manipulated both Kenny and Clementine by lying about the Baby. She led Kenny into that state just so she could make a goddamn point and when it came down to it she expected Clementine to forgive her after making her shoot Kenny all so her point was made. No. Fuck.That!
I'm grateful for what she did for Clementine but don't expect me to act like I owe her anything after what she made me do, she should be happy I let her live after finding out. But I was so sick of everyone so I just left her there alone, she can do what she wants but she aint coming with me.
Umm buddy did you read this thread heck , did you read my comment , why are writing this meaningless point.
Kenny fans are just like him can't get pas their fucking skulls.
HELL NO! Jane PROVOKED Kenny at the end... putting the baby in the car and making him to do stuff that could have been PREVENTED...
This part override all your statements.
HELL NO! Jane PROVOKED Kenny at the end... putting the baby in the car and making him to do stuff that could have been PREVENTED...
This part override all your statements.
Yes, religion can play a role in that. Upbringing, education (weather at home or an institution) and entourage from social groups can also play a role in that. The fact that you just picked religion out of many potential influences on a person's perspective on things is silly and narrow minded.
Again, lets try and stay on topic, I'm not here to debate religious views.
I don't want to seem like I ignore action. Not at all. But I put great emphasis on digging deeper, and trying to understand where those actions come from. Which, to me, seems very (more?) important. You may not absolutely know a persons intent, but that should stop you from trying to find out. As long as you don't jump to conclusions too quickly. As this game's main focus is characters and social interaction between them in various scenarios, I think intentions of each character is a key factor, to try and shed a light on, and understand where their actions are coming from. As opposed to just acknowledge a few of their actions and label them.
Yes, I do, because you can show that there are vast differences in the judgment of people's behavior among different cultures and that relig… moreions play a certain role in that. I won't deny that judging alone by actions can lead to problems, but so can judging alone by intentions (which you can't entirely be sure of anyway). It's just that actions are objectively observable and can be taken for measurement, intentions have to be infered or believed (if people state them) and that's a way greater uncertainty.
So actions should have the priority over anything, especially as that's the only way you can verify (if at all) people's (supposed) intentions, if you are not a fan of blind faith (which I am not obviously).
To me, a person that acts "good" always ranks higher than a person who acts "bad", no matter how good or bad their (supposed) intentions are. You can't absolutely know them anyway and people are prone to be emotionally fucked up mor… [view original content]
I'm not saying it's a mystery, I'm saying it's something you decide for yourself. I'm sure you're very qualified to talk about brain activit… morey and their correlation to emotional responses, but I think I missed the scene where Jane was getting an MRI-scan. There's no objectively right or wrong assessment no matter how many times you say it is.
Humans and apes just share a common ancestor! We're not and were not apes at any point and that's why you still see both of our species and a lot of similarities...
The point is that your brain and a lot of your evolution as a social ape stems from the importance of interpreting emotions in other apes. Y… moreou don't need a MRI for that, you were born with (and learned) the tools for that. That doesn't imply that human are always right with their interpretations, but it doesn't imply the opposite either.
You see, that whole stuff with playing games that provoke heavy emotional responses in the players, wouldn't work if they didn't imitate the same stuff that you use to interpret other people: facial expressions, gesticulations, variations in voices, etc.
It's objectively measurable that this stuff exists and triggers responses, so it's no rocket science actually.
That's the stuff people here are talking about, it's that what you can use to judge people and their behavior, nothing else. Flog tried to tell you that but you ignored it and kept on talking about metaphysical concepts like intentions and how… [view original content]
That's a good point. We don't really know more details about Jane's background with her sister. However, in this scenario, just leaving someone to get eaten alive, doesn't seem very selfless... even if they've lost the will to fight or live. But generally, I get what you're trying to say here, and I agree, to an extent.
Fast forward to Sarah, when she froze up and didn't want to move. Jane would have left her, Clem found a way to get her moving. We're not talking about some helpless person on tubes who can't live without them here. But a psychological terror scenario.
I don't know if you played that way, but Jane tells the story about Jaime and how she dragged her on and on around several states for months… more over and over again until the point that she noticed that she just doesn't want to go on, doesn't want to live in this world. She tried over and over again to go on, but in the end she realized that it's ultimately futile as you can't force people to fight and live. it's a blunt statement that she "left her to die" as if it was nothing. It's just harsh reality that you can't save people if they don't want to be saved, that's not only true for ZA, but for every other circumstance as well.
At one point it's even cruel to force them to live because of your own feelings that you don't want to live without them. You don't ask if they want to, you just decide for them and that's what Jane realized and stopped at one point.
Letting people go if they want to, is anything but selfish, you know.
The problem… [view original content]
Sure, but that's a question of how much trust you put into people. It's paranoia to assume that because of the sheer possibility that everyo… morene is going to, no matter what. That's the main difference between paranoia and being distrustful (until proven otherwise). Paranoid people won't also change their stance towards people, they will largely ignore any evidence that other people don't want to harm them.
I perfectly agree with you on that. It's important to ask the question why a person acts like he/she does, but I don't see that this will justify anything that person does and there is always a line at which I am done with my understanding of a person's behavior. That's where he/she starts to be harmful and dangerous to others.
I don't say that Kenny's behavior isn't understandable considering his loss and pain he suffered (even Carver is probably understandable that way if TTG had fleshed him out more) but that doesn't make it right to inflict the same or even greater pain on others without any reason. If people don't draw a line there and even go so far to condone violent or deadly behavior by that person, then I can't help myself but to think that these people have serious mental problems themselves.
Intentions don't kill people, actions do. Mixing that up in your moral compass is quite weird.
Yes, religion can play a role in that. Upbringing, education (weather at home or an institution) and entourage from social groups can also p… morelay a role in that. The fact that you just picked religion out of many potential influences on a person's perspective on things is silly and narrow minded.
Again, lets try and stay on topic, I'm not here to debate religious views.
I don't want to seem like I ignore action. Not at all. But I put great emphasis on digging deeper, and trying to understand where those actions come from. Which, to me, seems very (more?) important. You may not absolutely know a persons intent, but that should stop you from trying to find out. As long as you don't jump to conclusions too quickly. As this game's main focus is characters and social interaction between them in various scenarios, I think intentions of each character is a key factor, to try and shed a light on, and understand where their actions are coming from. As opposed to just acknowledge a few of their actions and label them.
Sure, but that's a question of how much trust you put into people. It's paranoia to assume that because of the sheer possibility that everyo… morene is going to, no matter what. That's the main difference between paranoia and being distrustful (until proven otherwise). Paranoid people won't also change their stance towards people, they will largely ignore any evidence that other people don't want to harm them.
Humans and apes just share a common ancestor! We're not and were not apes at any point and that's why you still see both of our species and a lot of similarities...
It was pure luck that Clem managed to get Sarah moving. It almost got both of them killed. In the end it didn't solve anything as Sarah died anyway because of the exact same reason that she was unable to move her damn ass for herself and, in that situation, almost got Jane killed as well (in my playthrough I told her to jump down to help her and she did...). You can have understanding all you want for people like this, but it's no good if you die on the way by trying to save them all the time. That reality Jane had to face with her sister (and it nagged at Jane all the time) and at one point you have to decide to leave them to their fate.
We can argue about where that point lies, sure, but we can't argue about that such a point exist.
I don't consider Jane to be the Ben-ish type of person that runs off at the slightest hint of danger, she had shown much more badassery than every other character in that season, coming back and save people in fucked up situations, so I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that she had tried everything to help her sister.
That's a good point. We don't really know more details about Jane's background with her sister. However, in this scenario, just leaving some… moreone to get eaten alive, doesn't seem very selfless... even if they've lost the will to fight or live. But generally, I get what you're trying to say here, and I agree, to an extent.
Fast forward to Sarah, when she froze up and didn't want to move. Jane would have left her, Clem found a way to get her moving. We're not talking about some helpless person on tubes who can't live without them here. But a psychological terror scenario.
1) Well, just as much as you may hate on Kenny for looking at clem like a replacement for duck. That's a bit unfair.
2) No, it was Jane. Kenny was too busy beating arvo.
3) After you're shot, Bonnie, Mike and Arvo still leave. Jane would have known about it when they left, and could have gone with them. But she stuck around for Clementine.
4) Yeah, she knew it might get extreme, and she didn'#t want Clem to be hurt.
5) A point about how Clem could survive better, which is still selflessness.
And you can be just as loyal to Jane as to Kenny. Staying with someone just purely because the game has forced you to be with them for 9 episodes is exactly what telltale want you to do though I guess, going by the sunshine and happiness walk-into-sunset ending, so maybe that's not your problem.
I'm plenty happy with a contrarian favorable view of Jane, but:
1) That's true, though she says she came back largely for Clementine, and… more I think she has an unhealthy wanting to replace her sister with Clementine.
2) I thought that was Kenny or Mike; I guess I'd have to look again, but if you're right, point there.
3) She wasn't there. We don't know if Bonnie and Mike approached her. She wasn't trusted by the group, so they may very well have not (I didn't call for Kenny and Jane during that scene so it may be there)
4) Not selfish. Crazy and/or stupid. If anything it's self sacrifice - the whole 'don't interfere' alludes that she knows who extreme it would get.
5) She didn't want Clementine to interfere because she wanted to prove a point.
Kenny is far from flawed; but Jane is no good either. By the end, I was under the impression they were all monsters (that said I stayed with Kenny, if not simply out of loyalty).
3) You're making the assumption that they would have taken her along, which I still doubt. Plus, I have a feeling there were out of there pretty fast after Clem got shot.
1) Well, just as much as you may hate on Kenny for looking at clem like a replacement for duck. That's a bit unfair.
2) No, it was Jane. … moreKenny was too busy beating arvo.
3) After you're shot, Bonnie, Mike and Arvo still leave. Jane would have known about it when they left, and could have gone with them. But she stuck around for Clementine.
4) Yeah, she knew it might get extreme, and she didn'#t want Clem to be hurt.
5) A point about how Clem could survive better, which is still selflessness.
And you can be just as loyal to Jane as to Kenny. Staying with someone just purely because the game has forced you to be with them for 9 episodes is exactly what telltale want you to do though I guess, going by the sunshine and happiness walk-into-sunset ending, so maybe that's not your problem.
Comments
Okay..The baby could have died , and Jane obviously checked the temperature of the car before placing him.must be Oversight by Telltale
But Jane didn't mean any harm to a little defenseless vulnerable kid.
Both of them are nuts at that point,but we all know after that situation Jane will just be a sane & reasonable person,while Kenny on the other hand remains to be a ticking time bomb,ready to blow up at any random bump,I've made my decision who I am gonna be with,staying alone wasn't the wisest choice in my opinion though.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but from the looks of it your argument seems to consist of "Kenny can act that way because that's just the way he is, but Jane can't because she isn't the same". That's a double-standard - I don't see why Kenny should be cut any more slack than other people. Even Sarita dying is no excuse, because we all know Kenny has always acted aggressively, even before Katja and Duck died.
I have a massive amount of respect for Jane having the courage to call Kenny a ticking time bomb to his face, because it's absolutely true. Every other character (except maybe Clem) has been saying and thinking exactly the same thing, and Jane is the only one with the balls to say so. The truth may hurt, but it's still the truth, and it can't be ignored for fear of being "mean", especially when lives are at risk.
I called for Kenny and Jane, at which point Clem was shot and she passed out. Definitely no reason to believe Jane knew what was going on.
...even if that were the question (which it is not), you can easily show correlations between brain activity and emotional responses. Of course you may not know this, because you aren't interest in that particular questions but claiming that this topic is some kind of all-eternal mystery is ridiculous.
Ture dat.
Jane cared greatly for Clem. She saved Clem more then once. She even says he didn't want it to go that far. But she's like Kenny mad, I left her and killed Kenny. Wasn't easy as I liked both characters but what they did wasn't right.
Jane wanted Clem safe , Kenny could have hurt Clem if she did something wrong to the baby.Jane was trying to prove.
Imagine if The baby really died huh?
In that respect Kenny is much more selfish than Jane, because he basically "robs" Rebecca of her son (there are certain scenes that show him to be quite creepy in his obsession with the baby).
Lol, seriously? you're bringing religion into this?
That aside, I do put a lot of emphasis on intentions, because that's what matters the most IMO. If you choose to ignore intentions and just look at the surface of things, you'll be very easily manipulated.
Back to the story at hand: Jane. Flog61, your last sentence. You just underlined her being selfish in the first place. Which the whole point of your OP was to deny. If we take that as truth, then we can speculate on the possibility of selfishness turning her to selflessness (even if, just in regard to Clem). But that's a new can of psychological worms. Can that even happen? I don't know. It's kind of contradictory. I'd say it can happen as a "localized effect". I bring up, her protection of Clementine. She acts selfless towards her, but will most likely show her selfish side to others. Which brings us back to her, indeed, being selfish. Selective acts towards just ONE person is not enough to paint the truth.
She was the one who stole from the Russians in the first place, she was kind of responsible.
Can't disagree here.
I was under the impression they were trying to sneak off with the car, so she might have been sleeping. I am pretty sure if Jane saw what was happening she probably would have killed them, for pointing a gun at Clementine, and trying to run off with the supplies.
Your right its crazy. She is crazy. She wanted a fight with Kenny and got it. She brought it on herself, and if she wanted to stop the fight, all she had to do is say. Kenny i was just joking bro, the baby is still alive in the car over there. It was selfish of Jane to expect Clementine to just sit and watch as two people kill each other right in front of her. She is obviously more close with Ken because she has known him longer, she knew Jane for maybe 2 weeks.
I think she did care about Clementine, but she was just as crazy as Kenny is, but at least Kenny's craziness is not based lies, deception.
I'm not saying it's a mystery, I'm saying it's something you decide for yourself. I'm sure you're very qualified to talk about brain activity and their correlation to emotional responses, but I think I missed the scene where Jane was getting an MRI-scan. There's no objectively right or wrong assessment no matter how many times you say it is.
Yes, I do, because you can show that there are vast differences in the judgment of people's behavior among different cultures and that religions play a certain role in that. I won't deny that judging alone by actions can lead to problems, but so can judging alone by intentions (which you can't entirely be sure of anyway). It's just that actions are objectively observable and can be taken for measurement, intentions have to be infered or believed (if people state them) and that's a way greater uncertainty.
So actions should have the priority over anything, especially as that's the only way you can verify (if at all) people's (supposed) intentions, if you are not a fan of blind faith (which I am not obviously).
To me, a person that acts "good" always ranks higher than a person who acts "bad", no matter how good or bad their (supposed) intentions are. You can't absolutely know them anyway and people are prone to be emotionally fucked up more than often, so it doesn't matter anyway if they are completely aware of their behavior, even if it heavily contradicts itself with their stated intentions.
Considering that Christianity revolves a lot around the idea that all you bad decisions and actions can be instantly revoked and forgiven by just flipping a switch without any involvement of own reflection and the pain that comes with actually acknowledging your own mistakes and flaws, it just reeks a lot that people's judgment is clouded by that shit when they condone killing people on make believe if there were good intentions.
In the end you just say you're sorry and that's it, you know....
" She didn't do anything wrong in the past. " - Except leave her sister to die.
And yes by my "messed up" logic as you call it, it's true. Kenny also cares for Clem and MOSTLY for the baby out of the need to fill the void. But, Kenny has shown to risk his neck for other people too, which negates selfishness.
Indeed. That Kenny hate has gone too far.
The point is that your brain and a lot of your evolution as a social ape stems from the importance of interpreting emotions in other apes. You don't need a MRI for that, you were born with (and learned) the tools for that. That doesn't imply that human are always right with their interpretations, but it doesn't imply the opposite either.
You see, that whole stuff with playing games that provoke heavy emotional responses in the players, wouldn't work if they didn't imitate the same stuff that you use to interpret other people: facial expressions, gesticulations, variations in voices, etc.
It's objectively measurable that this stuff exists and triggers responses, so it's no rocket science actually.
That's the stuff people here are talking about, it's that what you can use to judge people and their behavior, nothing else. Flog tried to tell you that but you ignored it and kept on talking about metaphysical concepts like intentions and how they are not objectively measurable.
You're right and it doesn't matter anyway because intentions are a stupid way of judging people.
The question about whether Jane cares for Clem or not is not a question of her intentions, it's a question whether she shows behavior that leads to the conclusion that Clem has an importance to her; doesn't matter how big and doesn't matter why.
Deducing the answer to that question out of her intentions (which you can't know as you say for yourself) and thus concluding, that you can't answer the question, is just your own logical fallacy and shows that you didn't understand the question.
Sure, but that's a question of how much trust you put into people. It's paranoia to assume that because of the sheer possibility that everyone is going to, no matter what. That's the main difference between paranoia and being distrustful (until proven otherwise). Paranoid people won't also change their stance towards people, they will largely ignore any evidence that other people don't want to harm them.
I don't know if you played that way, but Jane tells the story about Jaime and how she dragged her on and on around several states for months over and over again until the point that she noticed that she just doesn't want to go on, doesn't want to live in this world. She tried over and over again to go on, but in the end she realized that it's ultimately futile as you can't force people to fight and live. it's a blunt statement that she "left her to die" as if it was nothing. It's just harsh reality that you can't save people if they don't want to be saved, that's not only true for ZA, but for every other circumstance as well.
At one point it's even cruel to force them to live because of your own feelings that you don't want to live without them. You don't ask if they want to, you just decide for them and that's what Jane realized and stopped at one point.
Letting people go if they want to, is anything but selfish, you know.
The problem here is that "selfishness" is such a shallow concept that doesn't go along well with actual reality of relationships.
I stayed with Jane, I want to be able to learn from her. I want my Clem to have a safe place and person who will teach her to survive, much like Lee had.
Again she might have had the best of intentions but what she did in the end was wrong. She manipulated both Kenny and Clementine by lying about the Baby. She led Kenny into that state just so she could make a goddamn point and when it came down to it she expected Clementine to forgive her after making her shoot Kenny all so her point was made. No. Fuck.That!
I'm grateful for what she did for Clementine but don't expect me to act like I owe her anything after what she made me do, she should be happy I let her live after finding out. But I was so sick of everyone so I just left her there alone, she can do what she wants but she aint coming with me.
that's very civil of you.
HELL NO! Jane PROVOKED Kenny at the end... putting the baby in the car and making him to do stuff that could have been PREVENTED...
This part override all your statements.
Yeah so? Does that justify him killing her?
Yes, religion can play a role in that. Upbringing, education (weather at home or an institution) and entourage from social groups can also play a role in that. The fact that you just picked religion out of many potential influences on a person's perspective on things is silly and narrow minded.
Again, lets try and stay on topic, I'm not here to debate religious views.
I don't want to seem like I ignore action. Not at all. But I put great emphasis on digging deeper, and trying to understand where those actions come from. Which, to me, seems very (more?) important. You may not absolutely know a persons intent, but that should stop you from trying to find out. As long as you don't jump to conclusions too quickly. As this game's main focus is characters and social interaction between them in various scenarios, I think intentions of each character is a key factor, to try and shed a light on, and understand where their actions are coming from. As opposed to just acknowledge a few of their actions and label them.
Well alright, please wear a sign on your head "I'm a madman, don't provoke me or I'll kill ya", so that other people know better not to approach you.
DERP...fuck yes!
Jane's real fault is stupidity.
Leaving AJ alone and provoking Kenny was stupid.
MRI part killed me man xD
Humans and apes just share a common ancestor! We're not and were not apes at any point and that's why you still see both of our species and a lot of similarities...
That's a good point. We don't really know more details about Jane's background with her sister. However, in this scenario, just leaving someone to get eaten alive, doesn't seem very selfless... even if they've lost the will to fight or live. But generally, I get what you're trying to say here, and I agree, to an extent.
Fast forward to Sarah, when she froze up and didn't want to move. Jane would have left her, Clem found a way to get her moving. We're not talking about some helpless person on tubes who can't live without them here. But a psychological terror scenario.
I see. I admit that I don't focus much on defining vocabulary, But if that's the case, I'd call myself very distrustful, Not Paranoid.
I perfectly agree with you on that. It's important to ask the question why a person acts like he/she does, but I don't see that this will justify anything that person does and there is always a line at which I am done with my understanding of a person's behavior. That's where he/she starts to be harmful and dangerous to others.
I don't say that Kenny's behavior isn't understandable considering his loss and pain he suffered (even Carver is probably understandable that way if TTG had fleshed him out more) but that doesn't make it right to inflict the same or even greater pain on others without any reason. If people don't draw a line there and even go so far to condone violent or deadly behavior by that person, then I can't help myself but to think that these people have serious mental problems themselves.
Intentions don't kill people, actions do. Mixing that up in your moral compass is quite weird.
Ignore.
"Ape" is an umbrella term that includes humans, chimps and other funny apes that lived in the past, including the ancestors of todays apes.
You really seem to hate Kenny.
It was pure luck that Clem managed to get Sarah moving. It almost got both of them killed. In the end it didn't solve anything as Sarah died anyway because of the exact same reason that she was unable to move her damn ass for herself and, in that situation, almost got Jane killed as well (in my playthrough I told her to jump down to help her and she did...). You can have understanding all you want for people like this, but it's no good if you die on the way by trying to save them all the time. That reality Jane had to face with her sister (and it nagged at Jane all the time) and at one point you have to decide to leave them to their fate.
We can argue about where that point lies, sure, but we can't argue about that such a point exist.
I don't consider Jane to be the Ben-ish type of person that runs off at the slightest hint of danger, she had shown much more badassery than every other character in that season, coming back and save people in fucked up situations, so I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that she had tried everything to help her sister.
I only hate his character because telltale have shown so much favouritism towards him and his fans, and that makes me cringe all the damn time.
I like him in season 1.
1) Well, just as much as you may hate on Kenny for looking at clem like a replacement for duck. That's a bit unfair.
2) No, it was Jane. Kenny was too busy beating arvo.
3) After you're shot, Bonnie, Mike and Arvo still leave. Jane would have known about it when they left, and could have gone with them. But she stuck around for Clementine.
4) Yeah, she knew it might get extreme, and she didn'#t want Clem to be hurt.
5) A point about how Clem could survive better, which is still selflessness.
And you can be just as loyal to Jane as to Kenny. Staying with someone just purely because the game has forced you to be with them for 9 episodes is exactly what telltale want you to do though I guess, going by the sunshine and happiness walk-into-sunset ending, so maybe that's not your problem.
This forum has really become divided with Kenny 'supporters' and Jane 'supporters' I'm not joining any particular club so... Team Luke anyone?;)
Just to mix things up a little?;-P
3) You're making the assumption that they would have taken her along, which I still doubt. Plus, I have a feeling there were out of there pretty fast after Clem got shot.